I don’t need to introduce myself because your whole team is too busy in taking selfies and escaping/surviving from the Oceanian ghosts traveling with you in your buses, hotel rooms and bouncy pitches. Although your squad is mentally, physically and morally prepared since the day you stepped in the pacific continent to play on green, fast and bouncy pitches after all your preparations on U.A.E’s very sporting tracks; still I believe there is need of consultancy in strategy making after watching your two highly competitive and thrilling games against India and West Indies.

I have found your whole team in bizarre conundrum and dozen of errors in the most simplest common-senses in team selections, fielding and catching, target-chasing, and running between the wickets prove there is an urgent need of medical team full of neurosurgeons and psychiatrists (and they should be more in numbers as compared to your officials).

After painfully reading my first two paragraphs of paranormal compliments and regards, allow me to present you your 3 most basic comedy of errors you are producing in your vulgar cricketing presentation in this CWC:

1. Mental Weakness over Toss

Captain is not fully prepared to understand the condition of target-chasing nemesis. He should carefully read the stats of his team’s past performances on oceanic cricket grounds. He should realize that Pakistan has never chased 280+ target ever neither in New Zealand nor in Australia under any captain in ODI history. If losing the toss is your fate, then accept the counterpart’s decision. If you win the toss, go for batting and boost the morale unless the pitch has too much grass and moisture.

2. Avoid Experiments/Know your Combination

After strange squad selection and twice dropping the easiest chance of picking your main weapon Saeed Ajmal in place of the injured, you have to squeeze the 11 players from your 15 to create a formation and build a necessary winning combo. Time of experiments is finished just like preparation for exams before handling the question paper to the student.

The captain/coach has to admit on reducing the risk of reliability over two factors:

a. Younis Khan‘s bat which is not blazing in ODI for a long long time. He averages only 21 in ODIs in last three years. That is not only enough, the worst of his is absolutely ignored by the selectors. He averages 17 and 16.87 in ODIs in Australia and New Zealand respectively in aggregate of 19 ODIs with one knock of 50, no banging of SIX and overall strike rate of almost 60.

b. Haris Sohail’s bowling which is presented in the recent ODIs as fourth or fifth choice bowler. By average, he is bowling 7 overs every ODI which is too much to ask for, for a part-timer who has hardly bowled only 11 overs in his entire first-class career so far.

3. Daydreaming ’92 Glory

This has become the most embarrassing situation when the team indirectly is daydreaming more than being self-confident of rewriting the history in world cup record books. Comparing Pakistan’s initial troubles with the ’92 one is not playing a stress-relief game but inviting ghosts for a combat. You have to take the inspiration from ’92 glory and plan harder to avoid further hiccups.

WHAT SHOULD BE THE STRATEGY NOW!!!!!

Either bat first or second, no matter which team you play against, Pakistan’s XI for the remaining matches should be like this:

Oh a soft wind that freezes you with the medical guru declaring your fate that you have access of breathing this world for hardly 24 more months. The legacy is in the surviving and those who survive live long and serve. Life of unarguably Britain’s most famous living scientist Stephen Hawking is cinematically biographed.

Well known English documentary maker James Marsh, who won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature for Man On Wire, directed “The Theory of Everything“. Eddie Redmayne played the central role of the scientist while his spouse Jane Hawking was played by Felicity Jones. At a budget of mere $15 M, the movie boomed at almost $100 M. The movie is based on Mrs. Hawking’s “Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen”.

Eddie spent six months on researching Hawking’s life. Once the research was done, he had a chance to meet the scientist five days before the shooting began. Variety.com stated that during the meeting, Eddie’s nervousness knew no bounds as while detailing Hawking’s own life to him, he informed that he was Capricorn like him. On that, Hawking replied “I’m an astronomer, not an astrologer.”

I am more into accepting the movies with the most accuracies as far as movies based on adapted screenplays are concerned. This movie was a blend of fictional experiments and accurate events. When the weight is stoned, you will come to observe and understand that major events in the movie are more accurate than some minor changes which somehow are acceptable. For example; 1) First meeting of Mr and Mrs. Hawking was on the occasion of New Year’s Party in 1963 but only the location was changed. 2) Hawking’s classmate Brian is a fictional character but Brian’s character and attitude is well described in Jane’s book reflecting similarities. 3) Jane and future husband Jonathan did go on camping trip with Jane’s kids when Hawking’s coughing fits worsened. But Hawking in reality was rushed to Geneva instead of losing health in an opera show showed in the movie.

Bullet notes from Hawking’s life was justified. The doctor did declare his maximum survival not more than two years. Hawking’s parents had a cottage with very complicated stairs enough to lift Hawking’s wheelchair towards their destiny. Jane’s mother-in-law did ask her who the father of her third child was.

A major breakdown on accuracy was in one of the most important event of his life i.e., the first fall – the sign of ALS diagnosis. In movie, he fall in the campus whereas in reality he fell while ice skating. The other event is the separation of the Hawking couples after the entry of nurse Elaine Mason. It wasn’t as peaceful as the movie shows. In fact, Hawking’s memoir confirms he was very unhappy with Jane-Jonathan affair enough to decide to move out to the other flat with Elaine in 1990.

What was wrong with the movie? The major flow was that ‘The Theory of Everything’ was more inclined in describing Hawking’s personal life more as compared to professional life. The director looked more committed to present Hawking-Jane chemistry rather than focusing on his career. His works were highlighted for few minutes and his works and studies on Quantum mechanics should had a 10-minute place in the movie.

What makes this movie worth watching? First of all, it is easily apprehending biography of a great scientist with no-nonsense and the pace keeps your mode active on above-average scale with the movie length of 120 minutes. The other thing is there are no flashbacks. Besides few childhood scenes of the Hawkings, the timeline grows where the boy and the girl meets and eyebrows of viewers raise once the health of the scientist deteriorates. Excellent cinematography by Benoît Delhomme.

And the biggest plus of the movie, which makes the review morally incomplete without mentioning it, is the fact that ‘The Theory of Everything’ is a Eddie Redmayne show. Eddie has not actually researched Hawking’s life, in fact he brought a Hawking in himself to portray with almost perfectness. Sometimes during the movie, I am compelled to forget the story and study his character building. Keeping in mind that Eddie has to show Hawking’s health deteriorating time by time, he just stamps an authority to make you say bravo. His footwork, finger movements, opening and shaping of jaws while struggling to talk were abnormally extraordinary.

I am simply lost of words when he is trying to climb the stairs while Jane and his friends are at dinner and the baby is looking at him. That scene is an emotional pasture when Hawking comes out of his wheelchair to give the female attendee her pencil in a seminar which will move you to think how disabled person applies a normal incident imagining himself/herself in a normal body. It’s painful to think.

The Theory of Everything is a magnificent movie and deserves huge appreciation. Eddie Redmayne has produced one of the best performances of 2014 and richly deserve the fruit of his hard work. I should not ignore Felicity Jones’ efforts of assisting him in the whole movie and bringing a wonderful on-screen pairing. Superb acting by her side. Overall one of the best movie produced in 2014.

Once upon a time there was a painter from Travancore and a very attractive woman. They were destined to meet in their lifetime. One day it happened to be the moment when the painter’s eyes caught the attention of that lady worshiping in the temple. Her beauty inspired the painter to paint God and Goddesses as human beings. He began sketching her in different shade of moods and gifted her a major surprise by meeting her outside the temple. After she saw the sketches, she got attracted to him.

This was the time when Hindustan or British India was stuck with the infinite political crisis of seeking independence from British Raj and leaving the colonial prestige. Painting was seen as a token of appreciation towards the painter for his enormous talent of depicting his skills in art of drawing a particular substance. In the painter’s case, he was too broad to be accepted among the conservatives, orthodox and traditional people who believe in more social and moral code over their culture and religion.

Where the printed images of his collections made the common man worship the Gods in their houses, shops and community gatherings, few of them didn’t accept. His paintings of human beings as Hindu Gods or Goddesses enraged a particular community of fundamentalists and the case went to the local court. Till that time, his popularity had reached America and Europe. The painter was India’s finest revolutionary painter, Raja Ravi Verma and the inspirational lady was Sugandha Bai.

This story is from a biographical novel ‘Raja Ravi Verma’ written by Ranjit Desai. The movie on which this novel is based is ‘Rang Rasiya‘. It is a Hindi-Sanskrit language movie with some doses of English dialogues directed by National Award winning director Ketan Mehta (Mirch Masala, Sardar, Mangal Panday). Randeep Hooda is Raja and Nandana Sen is Sugandha. This movie took 6 years to release due to the certain objection of the Censor Board’s objection with certain bold scenes that involved paint and nudity. The movie shows how the freedom of art conflicts with man-made laws, how religious bigotry disturbs the social momentum.

Selection of Nandana Sen for Sugandha was very fitting as she incidentally was Raja’s fan. When Ketan approached her for the role, he found two of Raja’s paintings at her residence which made this deal more convincing and easy. Nandana will seduce the viewer to a level. Randeep’s selection was a tough one considering the fact that Randeep had to play a 20-year-old and then a sexagenarian.

Despite the fact the direction and dialogues were pretty weak and outdated, what worked for the movie’s complements was above-average performances and terrific background score. Raja-Sugandha chemistry was worth watching, it melt your emotions with paintbrush. Randeep-Nandana have done marvelous job. Costume and art designing was superb and will give you breathing in periodic environment.

Overall, Rang Rasiya is a Randeep Hooda show who portrays an exceptional character from the original and gives a feeling of nearness with him when he is riding his journey from highs and lows towards the legendary art. A journey which starts from marrying a princess and ends with why-should-I-tell-you, will make you leave the enthrallment of cruelty and boundary, motivate you to live with your passion and fulfill your burning desire. Being one of the best movie of the year is very debatable but calling Rang Rasiya one of the best art-centric biopic in recent years won’t be bad.

I am yet to understand the logic of fictionalizing historic events or biographies and deceiving the viewers who are under impression that seeing is believing… What would happen if the storyteller speaks the true lines parallel to someone’s life? Won’t the viewers appreciate and fully accept? I wanted to see a biographic docudrama about life of the great Harry Houdini and then, things unexpectedly went wrong…

First let me brief you who he was. Harry Houdini was son of a Rabbi and belonged from a Jewish-immigrant Hungarian family who moved to United States when he was a kid. At a small age, he became a trapeze artist to feed his family. He loved reading and once read French magician Houdini’s autobiography that inspired him to practice magic and changed his real name Erik Weisz to Harry Houdini. Later on he became illusionist and escape artist, saying in terse an entertainer. Houdini was a freemason.

Neither there is any evidence that Houdini got trapped in a frozen river nor did he get fame by escaping from jail. He never grew up or bought a large home in Brooklyn, nor did he work with a magician when he was a kid. Houdini’s secret-keeper Jim Collins was never American from Georgia but English and Houdini never played a bullet-catching act in his prime and never in a private performance for last German Emperor, Wilhelm II.

Houdini’s bondage sex with British painter Elizabeth Thompson (well-known as Lady Butler) is one of most bizarre plot to establish. Forget this ding-dong, there is no indication if they ever met. Houdini’s wife never took promise from her husband to give up escapes. In contrary, she was his biggest admirer and supporter of his work. His interest in spiritualism came in last phase of his life, the truth is that he was interested from the start of his magic career.

There is no evidence that Mina Crandon (Miss Margery) ever seduced Houdini or in his hotel room. He never offered punches on stomach, his first recorded punch was in his last year during a lecture at MacGill university. He never collapsed at stage during his final performance before rushing towards hospital. In fact he completed the show and came back hotel.

Wanna know worse than that? At your own risk! This is the biggest technical mistake of the whole miniseries when it comes to historical timeline accuracy by the way. There is a 1903 scene where Houdini is invited by Russian Royal family to present a private performance. One of the wish is to make the Kremlin Bells ring which he does. Among the attendees is the mad monk, Rasputin.

If the reader carefully read these last few Russian scenes and if he/she has some knowledge of Russian history, then the reader will understand that the makers come up with one of the biggest blunders;

1. Rasputin never met the Russian royal family i.e. the Romanovs in 1903. It was November, 1905 when Princess Milica of Montenegro presented Rasputin to Tsar Nicholas II of Russia.

2. Kremlin Clock is on Spasskaya Tower in Moscow. Moscow? Under the Russian Empire, St. Petersburg was the capital from 1730 till 1917. How come Houdini performed in front of the Romanovs in Moscow instead of St. Petersburg?

If the viewers would like to watch Houdini leaving the historical accuracy behind, then the plus is Adrien Brody‘s central role of Houdini. Adrien has every right to receive full-marks appreciation as his selection was the biggest trump card the makers played. Like Houdini, Adrien also is Jew, Hungarian from mother’s side, not born but grew and lived in United States. If that is not enough then like Houdini, Adrien Brody also performed magic tricks at young age. That is the reason, Adrien performed most of the tricks in the series on his own. Kristen Connolly as Houdini’s wife has done a terrific job.

To sum up and try to end this post in a better way, I would like to raise one question to the makers of Houdini. Please tell me just pleeeeaaassseeeeee tell me I beg you; in the series, how come Houdini’s eyes were brown at childhood and green when he was adult??? :’S